Brave Browser Discussion & Update Thread

Beta version 0.11.6 of Brave has activated its Brave Payments, which lets you send micropayments to websites as a reward for not hitting you with ads or trackers.

https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/01/a...ou-can-support-sites-with-cash-not-ad-clicks/

 

No thanks.

Why would I pay them when I have activated an ad blocker to shut them out?

 

Brave? don't see how the name is relative. If nothing else, it shows you how they will use every means possible to make you pay. We already pay for our internet connections and any number of other things as it is.

 

Yes privacy has become commodity that you have to pay for and is not a "right" any more. If our ancestors would see this they probably wouldn't understand why we let this happen.

 

Well for sure people by and large have allowed themselves to be lulled into a slumbering stupor.

 

I expected them to fix the ads system, but they chose the wrong direction IMO. I don't want to pay anything to websites, and I don't want anything to do with bitcoins. So it looks like a flop to me, they should rather focus on a way to present non-intrusive and non-tracking ads, that's the way to go.

 

How is Brave taking away your privacy? As I understand it, payments are optional if you wish to support the websites you enjoy. Even if you chose not to, ads and tracking is blocked using Brave.

If you want everything for free, and think websites shouldn't be reimbursed for their services, that's your option, but I wonder how many here have even bothered to look at what Brave is about before jumping to conclusions.

Good questions. How are the names Opera, Firefox, etc., relative. And why should we have to pay for trucks to deliver our goods when we already pay for the roads they drive on?

 

Not Brave but sites that try to track you.

Why should websites get "reward" for not tracking you?

 

Aren't website ads and tracking exactly what Brave is trying to stop?

You can pick which websites you wish to support and not support, if you choose to support any at all. If you think everyone can continue to get all website content for free, and no one should be reimbursed, and we'll still have all the quality content we desire with no ads or tracking, you don't need to do anything. Just don't use Brave, and if you do, don't use the payment option.

 

It appears to me that they are attempting to provide a way to do both. From their website:

 

Yes, I wasn't "attacking" the browser, I just don't like new practice where people have to pay for their privacy. Some ISPs want to push something similar...

 

Understand that! Personally, I know nothing about bitcoins, micropayments, etc., and given the reaction I've seen so far, it seems Brave may be brave to attempt asking for payments?

 

FF and Opera don't suggest a wonderful attribute. As for your truck analogy, we could use circular arguments like that all day long.

Well, when you put it like that Brave is fitting. Its the camels nose in the door. I don't like paying for my privacy.

 

As far as my "truck analogy", in what way is it not fitting? You suggest that you're paying your ISP, so somehow therefore, that's all that matters, content providers have no need to make a living. Calling it a circular argument isn't responding to the facts.

So You don't like having to pay for your privacy. What does that have to do with Brave? Brave isn't attempting to force you to do anything, they are trying to address a problem they see with the internet. If you don't want to use it, don't use it, but I would ask that if you are going to reply to threads that you try to look at all the facts first. You may have been misled by the title of this thread.

 

The more I think about it, the name is fitting. To attempt any kind of innovation in today's politically correct and alarmist world where everyone feels entitled and expects everything for free, and don't want to be given any options (remember; Brave protects your privacy even if you opt not to pay, so it seems to be the option itself that people have a problem with) is brave. It's at least as relevant as the user name "Reality".

 

I guess we will just have to wait and see how many people take them up on it.

It appears people have mixed views about ads and tracking on websites. Fortunately there are browser extensions that curb the intrusions, however some website owners block access if the user does not disable these extensions. The website owner as well as the user has valid concerns. But does Brave have the right solution?

Paying for privacy is seen by some as very much like the mafia telling you that it is in your interest to pay for protection. Pay or suffer the consequences. Well, not my opinion, but I can appreciate where they are coming from.

I never click on ads, but many do (Facebook is proof). Some people see targeted ads as the equivalent to having a personal shopper and see no disadvantage to being tracked from website to website. Their profiles are sold to advertisers. I cringe but it is a reality.

The majority seems to accept privacy intrusions as an inescapable norm (from communication systems to consumer appliances). It is the minority who treasure their privacy, so due to the large number of acceptees I can not see website owners needing the pay for privacy revenue to keep them operational. Sorry Brave, but I think your solution is not the right solution.

 

OK I see. But the problem is that their whole business model depends on how popular the Brave Browser will be. And the last time I checked, the browser was a joke.

 

At least we've gone from false accusations to ad hominem attacks.

 

Once again, the idea is not to force people to pay for privacy, but to allow them to support websites they value. Why is that so hard to accept? I believe the title of your thread is misleading.

Have you studied the matter and gathered statistics yourself? I admit I haven't, but it seems as if advertiser are doing all they can to circumvent ad blockers and ad blockers are struggling to keep up, and as ads become more intrusive, more people are turning to ad blockers. So I think your belief that the status quo can exist as it is forever is overly optimistic.

I have no stake in Brave, but I wonder why people seem to do all they can discredit it without seeming to bother to even look at both sides of the issues.

 

I'm not following you, where did you see any false "accusations". And if you're talking about me, this isn't an attack, this is called giving an honest opinion, about 99% of this forum is filled with it.

 

You're correct. You didn't directly accuse, you just jumped to a false conclusion based on the misleading, at best, title of this thread that appears to have been purposely intended to provoke responses such as yours, and all you did was fall for it by assuming that Brave had dropped it intent of "fixing" the ad system and were not going to provide a way to present non-intrusive and non-tracking ads:

And then when your error was pointed out, you responded that the browser is a joke, which sounds to me to be an ad hominem attack.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

I'm sorry, but I think it's a bit weird to use words like "attack" and "accusations" in the context of this thread. Fact of the matter is that I'm trying to give them advice, they should be thankful! I don't believe that a lot of people are willing to pay for ad-free sites, and their second plan will only work if Brave is able to attract a lot of users, which will be quite difficult in a market dominated by Chrome, Firefox and IE/Edge. On top of that, Brave is a joke when compared to for example Vivaldi. And all of these competing browsers can also implement an ad-injecting feature.

 

I think it's a bit weird to jump to conclusions, call a product a joke, and then pretend to be trying to help. Calling it a joke sure sounds like an attack and an accusation to me. You're "trying to give them advice" when it's clear you haven't even studied what their goals are and are quick to jump to conclusions. Where are you posting your advice that they should be thankful for, or do you think they're running to threads full of misinformation such as this one for advice?

I think it's fine if you want to give your opinions, but it would help if you admitted they are opinions, and that you may not have had all the facts.

 

Would you give some examples of how these "ad-injecting features" are implemented and what their purpose is? I'm admittedly unfamiliar with them, but from what I'm finding from searching for information on them is that, at least many of them, are unwanted Trojans rather than a "feature", and I'm not finding any thing so far that would indicate that they help the content providers on the websites you wish to support as well as protect your privacy, as I understand the intent of Brave's ad replacements to be.

So I'm interested if you can verify they're the same as what Brave is attempting and that the comparison is valid.

Thanks.

 

Very interesting read.
Haha.

"CEO Brendan Eich, is today rolling out its grand experiment “Brave Payments,” which will encourage web users to reward their favorite sites by automatically and anonymously sending them Bitcoin-based micropayments."